The Other Factor in Great Writing; More Reflections From Eng-L 460

This may seem a little odd, but one discussion that stuck with me during our class was when we viewed the Kurt Vonnegut manuscripts that consisted of his old class notes and its various doodles. I know it’s cool to get a glimpse into the working mind of a great writer, but one thing I couldn’t help but notice was the similarity between Vonnegut’s doodles and my own writings in my class notes. I too am an Anthropology major, and I love to write in my free time- that’s why I decided to tack on an English major just last year- and out of boredom I often find myself jotting story lines and ideas right next to my notes on gracile australopithecines and the difference between etic and emic perspectives. Seeing how familiar Vonnegut’s notes seemed to my own made me realize that Vonnegut, as well as other writers we’ve studied, did not start off all that differently from some of us in terms of writing. In other words, a lot of the writers we've lanalyzed at the Lilly didn’t start out great; they became great by cultivating their writing and through sheer luck in their success. Am I trying to suggest that I could write the next Slaughterhouse Five? Of course not- but I think this realization does put things in perspective. That along with great writing and talent, comes about 5, 10, or 20 percent that is made up of condition: the time, the place, working with the right people, targeting the right audience, and finding that initial inspiration that sparks the backbone idea of a great work itself. Upon some reflection, I think this class exposes the ‘luck’ aspect that has gone into these works that I don’t think we consider in reading for our English classes and reading for fun. In other words, I think looking at original manuscripts takes the author and the work itself off this pedestal of greatness we so often create and makes them more relatable- reminding that these talented people were just- well, people with a talent who were in the right place at the right time. I think this realization unsettles people in that it takes the “greats” and makes seem not so perfect after all. This may rattle some, but I like to be reminded that with the right amount of talent and a little luck, the idea of creating something worthy of the Lilly doesn’t seem so impossible after all. 

Hey we can dream can't we?

On Feeling ‘Unsettled’ After Viewing Original Manuscripts

         Was thinking the other day about the collective ‘unsettledness’  that emerged from our past discussions concerning the manuscripts we have looked over in class. I’m specifically thinking of the idea stated in our last meeting which goes-  “this class has taught me one thing- and that is never trust anything you read.” I found this such an interesting element that emerged from our class discussion, and I’ve found myself considering why we are so unsettled by the discoveries these works have revealed to us in their original form. I think that as English majors (and also for the non-majors in the class who simply love literature), we always find ourselves being taught to question text and the things we read. We dissect the characters, mull over the plot, recreate setting, and apply theoretical ideas to the motives and themes that drive the novels we read. We do so much of this, that typically by the end of a class lecture, paper, or discussion, we feel we have a good grasp and a very ‘deep’ understanding of the text and its ‘true’ themes.

Then you take Eng-l 460-

        And find that masterpieces, classics, and authors and artists whose works we hold on such stable pedestals of ‘greatness’ were in fact in constant flux in their creation, had hidden contributors and agendas, and in general may not have been the work of genius in its original form that we recognize today.  I’m specifically thinking of our discussions we had after viewing the Wizard of Oz script drafts, and Carver’s edited stories by Lithe.

     In the case of the Wizard of Oz we found that something we consider such a stable classic in American pop culture was in fact extremely unstable in its creation. Despite its humble themes, lovable characters, and lifelong lessons- everything that made the Wizard of Oz a classic was created, in large part, entirely by chance. And in the case of Carver, we found that his brilliant minimalist and menacing-like writing style that is so often praised in the study of short fiction may not even have been his original style after all.  

     As unsettling as these realizations are, I think that’s one of the most valuable lessons from the class. Not necessarily the message that you can’t trust anything you read, but the message that with every story comes a back story in its creation, and I think that’s an element that gets left out in the majority of English classes. Knowing this hidden element I feel will help to understand and consider future texts in a more holistic perspective, then maybe our “unsettledness” won’t be such a shock to us in the future.

 

Appointment schedule as of 4/22

Conferences in the Lilly,

 It’s possible that on rare occasions I might be a few minutes late for a scheduled meeting, although I will try to do everything I can to avoid it and will email you if I am running late.  If none of these times works, I am also available during some evenings—just let me know.

Friday, April 19

10:00-11:00   Alicia Scott

11:00-12:00  Jessica George

12:00-1:00     Ava Dickerson

Monday, April 22

9:00-10:00

10:00-11:00

3:00-4:00  Anjona Ghosh

4:00-5:00

Tuesday. April 23

11:30-12:30  Morgan Burris

2:30-3:30  Audrey Snider

3:30-4:30  Deborra Sanders

4:30-5:30  Elizabeth Pappas

Wednesday, April 24

9:30-10:30 Bernadette Patino

10:30-11:30  Aaron Denton

11:30-12:30
12:30-1:25 Travis Shaw

3:00-4:00  Erika Jenns

4:00-5:00  Ly Nguyen

5:00-5:45

Thursday, April 25

9:00-10:00

10:00-11:00   Michelle Gottschlich

1:00-2:00   Mary Bowden
12:30-1:00  Ly (2)

2:00-2:30  Becky Ferber

4:00-5:00  Steven Whyte

5:00-5:45  Hiromi Yoshida

Friday, April 26

9:00-10:00

10:00-11:00  Megan Jones

11:00-12:00  Brooke Opel

12:00-1:00    Ariel Hunt

More conference times will be made available during the final week.

A few notes on Carver edits

Details regarding characters and customers are all thinned out, deleted, or in some cases rewritten from scratch. Particularly the "way" they said, reacted, or did something, which might have revealed a character trait-- empathetic, insensitive, selfish, etc.

Introspection edited into into an unpacked reaction--
Original: "Who's your fat friend? He's really a fatty. // I definitely resented her making such a remark."
Edited: "Who's your fat friend? He's a fatty. // Wow that's part of it. I think that's really part of it."

(This also effectively revamps the character of the speaker-- one who has a moral ground and sizes and it against less sensitive characters', one who has recognized her empathy for the fat customer. Changed to what? What was this remark "part of"? What is being recognized in this moment and what does that (half-) failure of naming it say about the speaker? She has trouble identifying what strikes her as significant.)


(Partly) reasoned responses to automatic responses--
-Facilitated by switching past tense to present, and consolidating sentences into single continuous (unconscious?) motions.

Original: "Enjoy your dinner, I said. I had the urge to linger around his table and I raised the lid of his sugar bowl and looked in."
Edited: "Enjoy your dinner I say. I raise the lid of his sugar bowl and looked in."

Why the speaker is drawn to the fat customer becomes more complex and unsettling with these edits. While the original text clearly designates empathy (though the reason for empathy is still wonderfully quixotic  even given the sexual relationship between the speaker and Rudy), the empathy in the edits is never designated by signalled as a strange kind of subconscious pull the speaker feels toward the fat man. The gravity of a body that knows and controls its boundaries, who fills itself willingly and with pleasure (unlike the speaker in the unsettling sex scene.)




I've taken several more notes I'll save for class if they seem appropriate to bring up. In general, I was shocked to see the difference between Carver's creative work and Lish's (which is most certainly creative work and not simple dry editing.) Maybe some will vary on their responses-- Carver wrote the plot, the characters, and the submerged conflict; therefore it is his authorial content. But the tonal style, the way of communicating, isn't Carver's enough for me to feel comfortable with this piece anymore. All of the despondency (part and parcel of the tension and the conflict) (the very style of minimalism, I believe) is Lish's contribution.

The prescriptive additions (does the term prescriptive even work here?) without a doubt overstep the editor/author line. I (and I'm sure other creative writers) would testify that the extent and frequency of new or rewritten sentences would never ever fly in a workshop setting or the like.

Aggressively beating a dying horse here

In response to Sander's visit--

I don't think there is a question about the creative value of Sander's work. Certainly he is gifted, well-liked, and extremely developed as a writer (as we can see by his concise note-taking/pre-planning on the trip discussed in class.) He writes admirably and with clear purpose. His work is accessible and communicative-- a quality that has been critically applauded since the Modernists went out of style. I mostly read poetry anymore, but my favorite writers favor this approach as well. Lucille Clifton, for example. In short, Sander's is clearly skilled and no one needs me to affirm that-- his book sales and reputation do that well enough.

Now, that isn't to say I can't take issue with this literature that is accessible. I do, and lots of it. Concision of the word is a skill I believe only truly seasoned writers do well with. The imperative to simply communicate, using one's pen to "stamp" the thought in the brain onto paper legibly is not the same thing to me. Sander's said the subject of Virginia Woolf, the Modernists, and the Post-Modernists is language. (Sander's, he said, was family and the environment.) I disagree entirely. I value writers that use language to not only communicate but also exercise/demonstrate the content. Reading Woolf takes effort, certainly, but there is a way that working through a passage of Mrs. Dalloway unlaces our expectations, our belief that language can ever really bear the intentions and conflicts that dwell inside a speaker (given that the speaker is any way developed or complex.) Clarissa says that Richard Dalloway was the only real choice for her, but working through the content we know this isn't true. Our expectation of gender roles come unlaced, our expectations of desire and trauma and recovery, all unlaced and refilled. Writing "Clarissa married Richard because she felt she had to, but knew at some deeper level she loved Peter or Sally even more. This is a source of her daily and painful disorientation" in no way exercises confusion. It's a stamp that tells us gender roles, desire, and trauma are not what they seem-- but a stamp proves nothing.

To be critical in the most respectful way possible (and I entirely value Elizabeth's point that we have barely read Sanders' work-- I might compare his approach to family and complicated social issues to Harper Lee, and no one undervalues Harper Lee)--creating public sympathy and devotedness to the environment is a complex issue. Some of you may have read Slow Violence: Environmentalism of the Poor in classes before, which tackles this from a critical angle.
I think of it this way-- for the sake of functioning smoothly in daily life, I keep all my ideological attitudes in neat folders. I sympathise enough with the environment to be bothered by oil spills, deforestation, and the like, and I make the minimal effort of recycling, buying organic products if reasonably priced, and buying/selling thrift more often than not. The environment comes after issues ("folders" in this tacky allegory) that concern class warfare and gender inequality for me-- bad environmental news is not going to stick a stake into my day (like bad news of the class and gender would and do almost weekly, to which I have had to adapt to curb my aggression.) I don't care enough about the environment, I know it, and feel its fine even though it's not.

To care more takes unlacing, it takes disorder, it takes making one feel uncomfortable with one's tidiness. Does a book that delivers a tidy message in tidy language do this? No, not in my opinion, I file it in the environment folder in the back of my brain where I forget about it later.

Some more All in the Family stuff!

Hey everyone so I found some stuff relating to my project that showed more

When I was talking I referenced a video in which Amy Poehler interviews a writer who used to write for All in the Family. Here's that video!
Amy Poehler Interviews Irma Kalish
I really like this video because it's an example of how television and "All in the Family" in particular advanced women's place in television and tackled issues that no other medium would engage at the time. Both Amy Poehler and Irma Kalish acknowledge the fact that Irma was a trailblazer in her field and paved the way for others who came after.

The next video is the second part of the episode available on youtube. While the one we watched isn't available legally you can see the next part which is really all you need. You read the script for the first one anyway.
Edith's 50th Birthday, Part 2

Next is the Director Paul Bogart talking about how he chose to direct this episode. Watching it I came up with a couple ideas as to why this way was necessary, especially in a comedy format. What do you guys think?
Paul Bogart directs an episode!

Note on envelope

I had originally planned to transcribe the entire letter, but I then realized that my favorite part was not in the letter itself, but on the envelope.

The note reads as follows, written in blue ink on the back of the envelope:

Our two little granddaughters went into post office to mail this letter, while I double-parked with motor running. Despite my instructions, they didn't put postage on letter correctly and it came back to me after Ray's death.

Throughout our discussions this semester, the concern of losing handwritten manuscripts and letters to the advent of word-processed documents has come up frequently. I think this letter and its fabulous little note illustrate just what we miss by sending emails rather than physical post mail.

Sorry this post was so short!